Patents for landscaping and gas sations on the Moon

Here are couple of odd patent involving the moon. First, there is a startup raising money to fly robots to the moon, in order to rearrange surface sand on the moon to create large advertisements seen from space. The company is at: www.moonpublicity.com, and their ads tout their patent application.

Second, an utterly obvious claim being sought by Space Adventures in their U.S. patent application 20070128582, "Method, apparatus and system for private lunar exploration", with claim 1 , the obvious (i.e., ridiculous) content added afterward, in square brackets:

1. A method of registering for private space travel to the moon [or
travel on a yacht], comprising: providing a first spacecraft [yacht]
adapted to carry at least one private individual; receiving payment
from the private individual for registration for a flight [cruise]
on the first spacecraft [yacht]; providing launching of the first
spacecraft from the earth [yacht from the harbor] carrying the
private individual; and providing travel into lunar orbit [offshore
routes] for the private individual in the first spacecraft [yacht].

The inventors of the following issued patent must be extremely optimistic
with regards to how soon man will be spending a lot of time in outer space:

Propellant depot in space
U.S. Patent 7,559,508: Depots imply a lot of traffic, and I just don't see a lot of vehicular traffic in outer space in the next twenty years when their patent expires.

This IBM patent clogs sewers:

One rumored candidate to be the next Director of the Patent and Trademark Office is David Kappos, one of the head patent lawyers at IBM. Given IBM's many abuses of the patent system and patent policy over the past few decades, I think it is inappropriate, nay, wrong, for anyone from IBM to be head of the PTO. Might as well as make Bernie Madoff head of the SEC as part of his upcoming jail-time work-release program. IBM patent lawyers for too long have abused the patent system. Case in point. Last week IBM was issued its usual batch of patents, many of which are crap - crappy patents whose sole value is to clog the PTO's patent examination pipelines to the detriment of everyone else. A patent application policy actively embraced by David Kappos. If I was an IBM investor, I would applaud David for doing his best to help IBM. In fact, sometimes I recommend people to buy IBM stock because the company will do anything to maintain its market value. Kudos to David for his efforts in this regard. But the reward for abusing the patent system for the benefit of IBM should be a gold watch at retirement - and should not be the reward of being appointed head of the PTO. One of the many crappy patents issued last week is the one below, an expert system at a server that analyzes incoming messages (such as news), checks lists to see which subscribers want to be alerted to such messages, and sends the message to such subscribers. That is, methods Marimba used (and patented) to push software in 1996, IBM decides six years later to patent as methods to push other stuff. As usual, the patent cites an inadequate amount of non-patent prior art, based on IBM's inadequate IDS and the examiner's lack of experience in searching the non-patent prior art. Further, it looks like this patent, crappy as it is, was a First Office Action issuance - usually a good indicator of crap. After the application was submitted, an amendment was submitted, maybe with a bit of talking with the examiner, and then the patent was allowed to issue. Don't you all wish you had such clout with the PTO to get such crap issued? Part of the problem is that the claim language is IBM's usual excessively wordy, baffle-them-with-bull's shirt, confusing verbiage - again, another IBM patent policy actively supported by Kappos. Let's look at the abstract, which is almost easy to understand, and then claim 1, which gives me a headache to read:

United States Patent 7,487,550 Methods, apparatus and computer programs for processing alerts and auditing in a publish/subscribe system Abstract A message broker receives a published message from a publisher program. Responsive to identification of one or more subscriber programs subscribing to messages of the type of the received message, the broker forwards the received message to the one or more subscriber programs. Matcher components compares the received message with stored subscriptions to identify subscriber programs, generates an alert when an alert condition is satisfied, and compares the generated alert with stored subscriptions to identify subscriber programs subscribing to the alert. The alert is then forwarded to the subscriber program subscribing to the alert.

The patent only cites five or six prior patents, inadequate, grossly inadequate, especially in light of a Sun Microsystems patent whose title kills IBM's patent outright:

United States Patent 5,761,662 Dasan, June 2, 1998 Personalized information retrieval using user-defined profile

Now, for those of you who know anything about expert system database alert systems (i.e., a database with alert triggers, a decades old field), look at the crappy non-patent prior art considered:

Other References "Design of a General Clinical Notification System Based on the Publish-Subscribe Paradigm", A conference of the American Medical Informatics Association. By, A. Geissbuhler, M.D., W. W. Stead, M.D., Oct. 25, 1997, pp. 126-130, XP002179981. cited by other . "Exploiting an Event-Based Infrastructure to Develop Complex Distributed Systems", Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference in Kyoto, Japan Apr. 19-25, 1998, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, IEEE Comput.Soc, US, Apr. 19, 1998, pp. 261-270. cited by other . Icc.net Internet Commerce Corporation on website ICC.net/Services/Infosafe and ICC.net/Services/Infosafe/

Technology, 2001. cited by other . Arnold et al, "Discourse with Disposable Computers: How and Why You Will Talk to Your Tomatoes", USENIX Proceedings of the Embedded Systems Workshop, Mar. 29-31, 1999. cited by other.

Not one article from the any ACM publications and conferences on database systems, alert systems, message analysis systems, push, or expert systems, and only one article from the IEEE. Grossly inadequate, and IBM knows it. To cite nothing from SIGMOD or DEXA makes this patent crap. So maybe IBM should spend less time doing searches against other companies as part of its scam public patent review project, and more time doing searches of its own crap. Excrement, as in the language of claim 1 (the only claim as well, probably too long to not be workaroundable and thus unenforceable):

The invention claimed is: 1. A data processing apparatus for providing a publish/subscribe message dissemination service on behalf of publisher and subscriber programs comprising: means for receiving a published message from a publisher program; means, responsive to identification of one or more message subscriber programs subscribing to messages of the type of the received message, for forwarding the received message to the one or more message subscriber programs; and one or more matcher components for: comparing the received message with stored message subscriptions to identify the one or more message subscriber programs; generating an alert when an alert condition is satisfied; and comparing the generated alert with stored alert subscriptions to identify one or more subscriber programs subscribing to the alert; and means for forwarding the alert to the one or more subscriber programs subscribing to the alert, wherein the message and alert subscriptions are stored in data storage in association with message topic information, the one or more matcher components including means for retrieving stored subscription information by reference to message topic information of a received message, rules procedures for generating and determining required dissemination of alerts are stored in association with the message topic information,

NOTE: so far, this claim is nothing more than the many push systems popularized in the Internet era - no innovation here. And as a good example to deceive the Patent Office, the word "push" doesn't appear in the patent, depriving the examiner the opportunity to think about PUSH and search for Marimba's patents.

wherein the one or more matcher components are adapted to identify a relevant rules procedure by reference to the message topic information and to forward to the identified rules procedure: a message subscription list; a list of authorized recipients; and an identification of one or more subscribers for alerts; thereby to enable generation and determination of required dissemination of an alert; the one or more matcher components includes: means for performing an authorization check to identify a subset of the identified one or more message subscriber programs which subset of programs is authorized to receive the message; and means for generating an alert when the authorization check identifies an unauthorized message subscriber.

NOTE: actually, even this far, this claim is nothing more than the many push systems popularized in the Internet era - no innovation here. This patent is nothing more than an IBM ploy to clog the patent system with a patent application embodying little to no innovation - a tactic IBM has used for thousands and thousands of patent applications. A tactic warmly embraced by David Kappos. Who should not be appointed next Director of the PTO.

IBM defines the US Patent Law

IBM DECLARES WHAT IT THINKS 35 USC 101 REALLY MEANS Much as I love bashing IBM - they are so nefarious - I have to tip my hat to their claim drafters, who always do fun things with claim language. Just this week IBM was awarded a crappy software patent (memory storage pool allocation citing no non-patent prior art), with some fun language - here's U.S. Patent No. 7487322:

1. An article of manufacture including program logic on a computer readable storage medium(...)

This claim is classic in its contempt for 101 caselaw, because it directly attacks the nonsense of 101 caselaw (nonsense that all flows from the legal sewage otherwise known as Gottschalk v. Benson): is an executable computer program on a media an "article of manufacture"? Anyone who knows anything about the computer science or commercial software (a group which excludes much of the CAFC and SCOTUS) would say - sure - software is manufactured and sold as an article. Nothing wrong with this language. Or not, if you ask the Bilski crowd. Such language helps emphasize that Congress has to address the fact that the fundamental statutes of IP law (35 USC 101, 103 and 17 USC 102) will remain constitutionally vague until Congress defines what it means by such terms as "article of manufacture"- a definitional problem NOT the role of the courts to do.

Nigerian scams are getting into patents and academia

A patent holder's lonely way by Jonathan Hum and Dov Gold From the 26 January Barrons, page 18

Medical researchers at 12 major universities were shocked recently when they got letters from Nzedegwu Robert Olisa III, demanding $155,000 payment from each lab. Olisa alleged they had violated his patent and copyright with their activities in proteomics - a hot niche of biotechnology that studies the genetic recipes for proteins. Olisa filed infringement complaints with the FBI and the National Science Foundation. Note: a new twist to asserting a patent. The patent is U.S. patent 7,244,702, filed April 2003, and only cites three U.S. patents as prior art. "People are pirating my work.", Olisa said. "They are squishing me." He told Barron's his drug was the subject of 3,000 medical journal articles. Asked for citations,he then said it contained ingredients that have been mentioned in medical journals. His Web site (www.biologicalagents.com) suggests that the drug is useful against cancer, tuberculosis, malaria and HIV. Members of the Assocation of Biomolecular Research Facilities are puzzled by Olisa's bold claims. Olisa also says he owns the patent for detecting 12 of the 20 standard amino acids of which proteins are made. "We're not going to pay his demand.", said University of Minnesota legal counsel Brian Slovut. "We evaluated his claim and determined that there was no validity to it." Note: Brian - you are so wrong. Olisa's patent is one of Jon Dudas' many high quality issued patents. Christopher Viney, general counsel at Roswel Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo, New York, concluded that its lab practices didn't infringe Olisa's claims. Government patent examiners don't always understand the fast moving science of proteomics, noted Harvard University lab manager John Neveu. He said Harvard isn't paying. Olisa promised to call off the collection agents if the alleged infringers pay up. But they had better act fast. Olisa said he is a lieutenant commander in the U.S. Navy and is shipping off to Iraq in a few months.

How a patent lawsuit was used to inflate penny stock

The newswires and stock blogs have been all-abuzz in the past month about a patent lawsuit filed by Wordlogic against Mercedes Benz. What follows is one financial newsletter's review of the case and their recommendation to BUY because Wordlogic is going to win hundreds of millions of dollars from MB, and then sue everyone else as well. I am dubious - the patent could have serious validity problems because of non-cited prior art. The patent involved, U. S. Pat. No. 7,293,231, is for a predictive text algorithm, that is as you type the first part of a word, the computer automatically offers one or more full words that could be what you have in mind. I type in "predict" and the computer automatically returns "prediction, predictive, etc.". Cute feature in some cases, aggravating feature in other cases. The following stock tout is interesting for its cheerleading wording, its use of patent lingo, and calculation of patent damages, which while I think are exaggerated, look like some of the patent damage calculations proposed in "legitimate" patent lawsuits. It is entertaining reading, and good copy if you want to tout your patent lawsuit in the future. A pity the tout ignores serious prior art problems with the patent. As of June 2008, WordLogic had retained Dan Skerritt of Tonkon Torp (Portland), a litigator whose big win seems to be one of those state lawsuits against the cigarette companies. I hope he understand prior art in the patent world. Also in June, WordLogic retained the services of Ascend Ventures, to help exploit its patent. The patent cites a fair amount of patent and non-patent prior art: 119 U.S. patents and patent applications, 15 foreign patents. While it cites a lot of non-patent prior art, only 10 are one year or more prior to the provisional filing date of March 1999. Since there has been two decades of research prior to the filing in this area of user interfaces, this patent could have invalidity problems, once Mercedes-Benz throws some good money at a prior art search. This potential problem is not mentioned at all in the tout below, one reason I am suspicious of its logic. The second problem is that there an Acacia subsidiary, Autotext, which has a lawsuit against 12 companies over a much earlier patent, 5,305,205, that is similar to WordLogic's patent (more primitive maybe, but raises 103 issues definitely). And this patent is NOT cited by Wordlogic's patent, raising invalidity issues of what other patent prior art Wordlogic missed finding, let alone what other non-patent prior art Wordlogic missed finding (I am available to do the search :-) Let's look at the key aspect of Wordlogic's independent claim 1:

(a) receiving a partial text entry comprising at least a first character (b) in response to receipt of the first character ...., obtaining a dynamically generated list of completion candidates .... (c) displaying the list of completion candidates in a search list

The rest of the claim is utterly obvious graphical user interface methods to ask the user if she wants to ignore the list, or choose one of the proposed words to be entered into the appropriate field. Now, let's look at the key aspects of Acacia's 5,305,205 patent not cited as prior art:

(b) list means responsive to the entry of a succession of characters by said entry device on a character by character basis for determining a succession of ordered lists of candidate words from said vocabulary words, .... (c) display means for displaying at least a portion of said list on said display screen, ...

Not that hard to map the three phrases from the WordLogic patent into the three phrases from Acacia's patent, suggesting that WordLogic has serious patent validity problems, especially if additional prior art searching is done. Supposedly WordLogic has a second patent about to issue, probably a continuation where they submitted additional prior art. But if such art included the Acacia patent, the second patent is proof not of WordLogic's innovation, but rather more proof of patent quality problems at the PTO. So when Frank Evanshen, president and CEO of WordLogic is proclaiming:

"The time has arrived for this company, its products, and its patents to be put on the world stage."

I can agree if the stage happens to be at a world comedy theater. On January 20th, 2009, WordLogic announced a comprehensive technical and financial review is being done of the patent, to be finished in a month. Without a rigorous prior art analysis, this review will be worthless. Indeed, the report is available at www.wordlogic.com/WordLogicReport.pdf, a report which is worthless for ignoring the prior art problems this patent probably has. Thus the following stock tout is a good example of a) patent lawsuit based stock touts you will see more and more in the future, and b) the dubious nature of many such stock recommendations if they aren't written by one or more people who know the stock markets, technology and patent claim analysis. Now, "Wall Street News Alert"- The Stewart Report Investment Opinion German Engineering Has the Respect, But WordLogic Holds the U.S. Patent. Laguna Beach, CA, January 23, 2009 - To most investors, WordLogic (OTC/BB: WLGC $0.80) is a cutting-edge software technology company... and I won't argue with that assessment. But, for our purposes, it's a pregnant win in the form of a giant lawsuit. Very recent events, not yet digested by the financial community, suggest this lawsuit is worth $12-$18 per share, yet the stock is still under a buck. Speculating on the outcome of a lawsuit might not seem like the highest of ambitions - the Wall Street equivalent of ambulance chasing - until you realize the value of the technology relative to the probable value of the suit itself. As for the defendant? It's none other than Mercedes-Benz of North America, meaning that this particular "ambulance" is stacked with enough $100 bills to pass for an armored Brink's truck. Besides, the technology being contested is so integral to modern daily life that you probably used it a couple times today before you even got to work. So did your kids. In fact, if you received this stock recommendation on your Bluetooth, Blackberry, iPhone or some other handheld device - or even if you got it via e-mail on your desktop - it's likely you used WordLogic's technology to open this profile on WordLogic itself. That's because most of today's personal electronics employ a "predictive text" program - i.e., the technology on your text-messaging program that finishes the word "message" before you finish entering the letters "mess" Actually, though, WordLogic's technology is to simple predictive text-messaging software what chess is to checkers. Horizontal logic is no big trick. It's the ability to bridge upward to access all kinds of specialty dictionaries that makes WordLogic's technology so patently unique. In terms of vertical growth, if its intellectual property was a building, we'd be looking at The Sears Tower. The software really is dynamic. But, again, the important thing is that it's also heavily patented - and the patent has been so heavily infringed on that triple damages are now being sought. If the adage is true, if "imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery", then the same thing could probably be said of plagiarism - or even the outright piracy of an intellectual property. My point being, if WordLogic's technology is good enough for Mercedes-Benz, it's probably very good technology! Beyond that, the techno-members of a wireless generation who live and breathe ethers of the Internet would be the ones to best explain WordLogic's software. No, my assigned role here is to offer The Stewart Report's investment opinion, in part because I've twice used the stock market to speculate on the outcome of David v. Goliath-type lawsuits similar to this - and twice I scored some fairly bodacious profits. I also have a 50 percent interest in Stewart/Abbott Medical, a privately held company with a technology that's patent pending, so I have a modest knowledge of patent law and the hurdles of the patent process. And, finally, the last stock The Stewart Report featured using the ---- service (Applied Nanoscience, Inc.: Pink Sheets/APNN) more than doubled in just four day's time. A little profit-taking set in after that, but it's still up a respectable 84.6 percent. Bragging rights aside, APNN is a "patent technology pure play." Bottom Line: WordLogic is also a "patent technology pure play", but with a wonderful wild-card twist: Massive, winnable litigation for treble damages! Ridiculous sums of money are up for grabs - and I believe that, one way or another, WordLogic will prevail. The adage is: "If you know the ropes, you are less likely to hang from them." Frank Evanshen, WordLogic's President and CEO, understands this. So he also understands that if you are to go up against an army of German lawyers, deep pockets can be helpful. Accordingly, selling the Company - and therefore the patent, the lawsuit and the future payday for a large fraction of its long-term value - is always a viable option. That makes WordLogic an obvious buyout candidate as well. So, whether it's in the courtroom or the conference room, shareholders have an intriguing situation that's already in play, and is the basis for The Stewart Report's strong speculative BUY Recommendation at this time. United States Patent No. 7,293,231 Everything centers on WordLogic's patent. The original application is titled: "Data Entry for Personal Computing Devices." Read that twice, consider the day and age in which we live and then tell me this isn't an important patent. You might also take a look at the link on the Company's website and view the patent documents themselves. In them, you'll notice that the Company makes 116 separate claims (all of them were approved!) and survived seven separate "Office Actions" (which is almost unheard of). See below: NOTE: If you are unfamiliar with the patent process, an Office Action is filed when the patent people come back to you with a complaint and/or a request for additional proof to substantiate your design claims. Usually, in all but the most important patent applications, after one or two Office Actions, a patent is either approved or sent to the shredder. Surviving so many claims is evidence of a patent application that has been thoroughly tested because it's truly far-reaching - If not all-encompassing. In other words, what we're talking about here is an honest-to-goodness "Platform Technology", such as DOS, on which Microsoft was built. These are, of course, rare - and tend to be wildly valuable.

Is there a trivial patent, especially if filed in October 2002, and citing no non-patent prior art?

Which, amateur, naive, pro-se patent applicant would seek such a patent? Automated docketing system U.S. Patent 7,369,701 (Issued May 2008, CON from Oct 2002) Inventor: Patent Lawyer Steven Lundberg Abstract: The present invention includes a method for docketing an action or event, such as an action or event defined in a form received from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The method includes scanning the form having written information thereon, the written information comprising a date and indicia defining a docket event, to obtain a scanned image. The indicia on the form defining a docketing event includes a title such as, "Office Action", "Notice of Allowance", "Notice of Missing Parts" and so forth. The date on the form includes, in many embodiments, "Date Mailed". The method also includes processing the scanned image with character recognition logic and identifying the indicia defining the docket event or action and the date on the image.

NO NON-PATENT PRIOR ART IS CITED. So let me be blunt - any named-partner patent lawyer who submits a patent application of his own and allows it to issue with no non-patent prior art citations should be disbarred by the PTO Office of Enrollment and Discipline. It is a contempt for the system, and deceit on the Patent Office, to think that such inventions have no non-patent prior art of relevance. To do so is just plain unethical. And it makes you wonder if his firm advises their clients to play the same pathetic prior art submission games. But he does have gravitas, so I suppose that excuses his behavior.

To patent submarine patenting:

I have critiqued silly and ridiculous patents in the previous and other posts, but here is the attempt to patent submarine patents, filed by someone who knows nothing about jurisdiction (out of pity, the PTO should return his application fee): Submarine patents U.S. Patent Application 20080221912 David James Harris, of Great Britain 1. A method of seeking patent protection for an invention, comprising: a) filing a first European Patent Application for the invention at a first date; b) filing a second European Patent Application for the invention at a second date not more than one month later; characterised in that the second European Patent Application is a divisional European Patent Application claiming the filing date of the first European patent application.

David, my boy, a patent issued in the United States is completely useless for a method performed completely outside the United States. Now, I can understand a pro se inventor filing such wackiness, but I am shocked that a US law firm is helping a foreign inventor file such excrement:

Computer system for distributing a validation instruction message U.S. Patent Application 20080201334 Justin Ryan Simpson (Legal Rep: Brooks Kushman) Claim 1: 1. A computer system for distributing a validation instruction message, the computer system being adapted to communicate with an interface, a specification database and a plurality of European agent computers, the interface including: a European patent identifier receiver adapted to receive a European patent identifier; and a country selection receiver adapted to receive a country selection, and the specification database being adapted to store a plurality of European patent specifications, wherein, when the computer system receives a European patent identifier and a country selection, the computer system is adapted to: (a) obtain, from the specification database, a European patent specification corresponding to the European patent identifier; and (b) provide the European patent specification and the validation instruction message to a European agent computer corresponding to the country selection.

Justin, more than likely, someone is going to implement this computer system outside the United States, making your U.S. patent (if it issues) completely useless. Such as implementing this system in Europe, where sadly because the EPO and courts love to betray science, engineering, semantics and law with their silly "technical effect" drooling, the European sibling of this patent application will never issue.

Application For The Method of Patenting Paralegal Process:

This is the classic attempt at dealing with the European fetish for the pompousness of using the characterized by vs. the good old American said: System for facilitating the preparation of a patent application with an automatically variable omnibus form paragraph U.S. Patent Application 20080256428 Milton; Harold W. DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC Claim 1: A method of preparing a patent application including DESCRIPTION and CLAIMS sections by using a computer program comprising the steps of: presenting an omnibus form paragraph preceding the CLAIMS section, drafting a claim in the CLAIMS section including at least one key, storing a key explanation describing the use the key, characterized by scanning the claims for the key, automatically inserting the key explanation in the omnibus form paragraph in response to the presence of the key in the claim. 3. A method as set forth in claim 1 further including storing "characterized by" as the key. 5. A method as set forth in claim 1 further including storing "said" as the key.

Halliburton applies for the method of troll patenting

It was UC Berkley, among others. Then, Microsoft. President Obama better sign a decree that makes it a criminal offense for anyone in the patent world to use the word troll. It is a meaningless term that becomes more and more pointless each day, due in part to the following absurd wackiness applied (and breezed through by the US Patent law) for by Halliburton Energy Services:

Patent acquisition and assertion by a (non-inventor) first party against a second party U.S. Patent Application 20080270152 Claim 1: A method for a non-inventor first party to acquire and assert a patent property against a second party, the method including the first party performing the following acts: obtaining an equity interest in the patent property; writing a claim within the scope of the patent property, the claim being written to cover a product of the second party, where the product includes a secret aspect, the secret aspect including an unobservable aspect, where writing the claim includes performing research using a computer to convert the unobservable aspect to an observable aspect; filing the claim with a patent office; offering a license of the patent property to the second party after the patent property issues as a patent with the claim; and attempting to obtain a monetary settlement from the second party based on the assertion of infringement of the claim. Patent property - both novel and vague term. Aspect is already used in the claim within a different aspect. I guess Dick Cheney needs novel and non-obvious ways to make business off government contracts.

Microsoft gets awarded yet another excrement patent

Case in point - one of the revolting pieces of fecal patents just issued recently to Microsoft. It demonstrates yet again the contempt of large companies do to any prior art searching, the love of large companies to flood the PTO with crap applications to choke the system while whining about others who do the same [now known as Chandlerism], and once again, it demonstrates the PTO'S COMPLETE AND TOTAL MISMANAGEMENT OF PRIOR ART SEARCHING AND RESOURCES. When Jon Dudas told Congress that most, if not all, measures of quality at the PTO are their highest in 25 years, he deliberately LIED to Congress. Whoever is paying Dudas to wreck the PTO is getting their monies worth. The patent. The USPTO belched/oozed/barfed out U.S. patent 7,437,290 to Microsoft: Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast U.S. Patent 7,437,290 MICROSOFT (filed October 2004, issued October 2008) Despicable claim language aside, this patent is a method for detecting undesired speech in broadcasts, censoring (deleting, bleeping) the undeisred speech and updating probability tables for the presence of the recognized speech. COMPLETELY UNINNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY. The claim is attached below. So how much tremendous amounts of prior art, with Bill Gates' billions to sustain decent prior art searching (NOT - a lesson well learned by its stepchild Intellectual Ventures) - how much prior art is associated with this patent? NEXT TO FREAKING NOTHING. The patent cites two prior patents, and one non-patent prior art published too late: 7,139,031 Automated language filter for TV receiver 6,337,947 Method and apparatus for customized editing of video and/or audio signals Seide et al, "Vocabulary-Independent Search in Spontaneous Speech", IEEE International Conference on ASSP, May 2004 Such pathetic prior art submissions should a priori be automatic proof of intent to deceive the Patent Office. Just how pathetic is this patent? Once again, let me do a 15-minute-Jon-Dudas-High-Quality-Patent-Bust. Thebust relies on five patents that were published by the time the examinershould have been doing ANY searching, four of which were published at the

time Microsoft filed they patent, had they wanted to do any searching: Publ. Date. Number Title ----- --------- --------------------------------------------------------- 1993 5,199,077 Wordspotting for voice editing and indexing 2004 6,829,582 Controlled access to audio signals based on objectionable audio content detected via sound recognition 2000 6,166,780 Automated language filter 1999 5,870,708 Method of and apparatus for scanning for and replacing words on video cassettes 1994 5,369,440 System and method for automatically controlling the audio output of a television So let's look at this prior art, which neither Microsoft nor the PTO did, to see how crappy Microsoft's patent is. The first patent, dating back to 1993 (eleven years before Microsoft filed) is a foundational patent on pattern recognition systems (in this case, Hidden Markov Models) to learn to recognize and delete segments of speech, which includes questionable segments of speech that are being broadcasted: _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,199,077 Wordspotting for voice editing and indexing Abstract A technique for wordspotting based on hidden Markov models (HMM's). The technique allows a speaker to specify keywords dynamically and to train the associated HMM's via a single repetition of a keyword. Non-keyword speech is modeled using an HMM trained from a prerecorded sample of continuous speech. The wordspotter is intended for interactive applications, such as the editing of voice mail or mixed-media documents, and for keyword indexing in single-speaker audio or video recordings. From the SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: An important application for the wordspotting system of the invention is not only indexing of recorded speech, but especially for interactive voice editing of recorded speech, such as voice mail, dictation, or audio documentation. Wordspotting can be employed by the user to enable editing operations by locating specific words in the recorded speech for deletion, substitution, or insertion. It will also ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ enable efficient and automatic means of indexing into long audio documents. The system, while restricted to a single speaker, or pairs of speakers is not restricted in vocabulary size. _________________________________________________________________ One application of this patent is to use the Hidden Markov Models on recorded speech THAT IS BROADCASTED, using the detections to delete specific words, i.e., Microsoft's patent. Almost complete anticipation, especially when obviously combined with the following patent: _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,369,440 System and method for automatically controlling the audio output of a television Abstract A system and method for automatically controlling the audio output from a television so as to avoid listening to undesired material includes a microphone for converting the audio output from the television into audio signals, an audio amplifier for amplifying the audio signals from the microphone, a waveform pattern comparator, a waveform digitizer and recorder, a speech recognition unit, an external device controller, a computer and an input/output device. In setting up the system for subsequent use, waveform patterns of audio signals corresponding to material being outputted from the television which the listener considers undesirable are digitized by the waveform digitizer and recorder and then stored in the waveform pattern comparator. In addition, digital signals corresponding to key words in undesired material are entered into the computer through the input/output device and then transferred from the computer to the speech recognition unit. Once the system has been loaded with the undesired material, waveform pattern comparator continually digitizes and compares the audio signal output from the audio amplifier with the stored data. At the same time, the speech recognition unit compares the audio signal output with the stored key words. When the undesired material is detected an indicator signal is sent to the external device controller which outputs a control signal which is applied to the television to make some adjustment to either the sound or the channel to avoid listening to the undesired material. _________________________________________________________________ So two patents, published in 1993 and 1994, TEN YEARS BEFORE MICROSOFT FILED THEIR PIECE OF CRAP, completely anticipate Microsoft's supposed invention. Just to have fun, I found three more patents, also so much on point to be powerful prior art. _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 6,166,780 Automated language filter Abstract A method and apparatus for analyzing the closed captioned aspect of a video signal for specific undesirable words or phrases and then muting the audio portion of those words or phrases while not affecting the video portion therein while simultaneously modifying the closed captioned signal in order to display only acceptable words or phrases. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 6,829,582 Controlled access to audio signals based on objectionable audio content detected via sound recognition Abstract An apparatus, program product, and method restrict access to objectionable audio content in an audio or audio/video transmission using sound recognition. Sound recognition may be performed, for example, to detect and control access to objectionable non-spoken audio content, e.g., by detecting violent sounds such as screams, explosions, gun shots, sirens, punches, kicks and/or other non-spoken content such as sexually-suggestive sounds. In addition, occurrences of objectionable audio content detected in an audio transmission may be tracked so that access to the audio transmission may be controlled responsive to the identification of multiple occurrences of objectionable audio content. Furthermore, access control over detected objectionable audio content in an audio transmission may result in inhibition of access to a program associated with the audio transmission. _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ United States Patent 5,870,708 Method of and apparatus for scanning for and replacing words on video cassettes Abstract A scanning apparatus for scanning a video recording for objectionable content is disclosed that includes an audio processor for analyzing the recording and recognizing the objectionable audio, and audio control gate for manipulating the objectionable audio. The scanning apparatus also includes an amplifier that amplifies the signal and converters to convert the signal from analog to digital format prior to analysis and digital to analog format after analysis. The method of scanning the video recording for objectionable content includes the steps of analyzing the recording and manipulating the recording. The method first includes the steps of amplifying the recording signal, separating the audio portion of the recording from the composite recording, digitizing the portions of the recording, and storing the composite portion of the recording in a loop while analysis is performed on the audio portion of the recording. _________________________________________________________________ So five patents I found in 15 minutes completely invalidate Microsoft's crappily issued patent. And this doesn't rely on even more patents, and even much more non-patent prior art that is available, had anyone bother to do any searching (apparently a firable offense at Microsoft). 15 minutes neither Microsoft nor the PTO spent doing a similar search. Because to big companies like Microsoft, and big liars like Jon Dudas, patent quality is still a big freaking joke. So when con artists like IBM lie about the need for public peer review of patents, while remaining silent about the incompetence of PTO management with regards to prior art handling, it is just con artists cheating. And when liars like Jon Dudas chandleristically whine that the PTO needs more prior art, it is a big freaking lie because the PTO still is unable to make use of all of the patent prior art it has complete access to, let alone non-patent prior art. All of these people are liars, especially since it takes longer for them to write their liars about prior art that it does for me to find the prior art. ========== Automatic censorship of audio data for broadcast Microsoft U.S. Patent 7,437,290 1. A method for automatically censoring audio data, comprising the steps of: (a) automatically processing the audio data to detect any undesired speech that may be included therein, by comparison to undesired speech data, by performing the following steps; comparing words in the audio data against words comprising the undesired speech, to identify potential matches; dynamically varying a probability threshold dependent upon at least one criterion; and based upon a probability of a potential match and the probability threshold, determining whether any undesired speech is included in the audio data; (b) for each occurrence of undesired speech that is automatically detected, altering the undesired speech detected in the audio data, producing censored audio data in which the undesired speech is substantially no longer perceivable by a listening audience; and (c) dynamically adjusting the probability threshold based upon a frequency with which undesired speech by a specific speaker is detected in the audio data, so that as the occurrences of undesired speech that are detected increase, the probability threshold is reduced

Electric iron + MP3 player=Video gravestone=insanely obvious and unfit to file

Analysis of US Patent application 20080926, Electric iron + MP3 player, and US Patent Application 20040085337, Video enhanced grave marker. I recently came across a patent application that at first glance seems completely obvious to the extent that it could be unethical for the lawyer involved to have accepted money to file the application. The application is 2007/218960, "Combined electric iron and audio device", and that's pretty much the invention - sticking something like an MP3 player inside the housing of an iron. Abstract and claims below. Claim 1 attempts to proclaim: 1. A combined iron and audio device, comprising: an electric iron having a housing; an audio device configured into the housing; a control system for the audio device, said control system being configured to operably control said audio device; and a power source to power the audio device. First question - where's the new useful synergy between the iron and the audio device, other than one of X being housed in Y? There isn't any, and most of the submitted claims deal with the functionality of the audio device, and not with any "functional" (whatever that means - the PTO continues to illegally refuse to define the term despite using it in its examination guidelines and for rejections) interaction between the iron and the audio device. What might a functional interaction be? For example, "... wherein the output of the audio device is connected to the heating element of the electric iron", that is, instead of the iron providing a steady level of heat, the iron's heat output is modulated by whatever music is playing. Admittedly, that's idiotic as well, but at least its functional (a more practical version of this is Apple's upcoming patent application for a vibrator-shaped iPod :-). But as is, I see no interaction, in particular, no new useful result. The iron still irons, the audio device still audios - the whole does not exceed the sum of its parts - there is nothing greater than expected. I argue the invention, as so claimed, flunks paragraph 101 of the US Patent law. One claim does suggest some interaction: 10. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the power source comprises a power converting circuit, the circuit converting the electrical power used by the iron into a form suitable for use in the audio device. but then this seems completely obvious to any consumer electronics engineer - tapping a main unit's power supply to supply a secondary unit - done all the time in personal computers, with peripherals drawing power from the main power supply. So I argue this claims flunks 103. And if I search around, I suspect I can find some 102 prior art. This patent application, if it manages to somehow issue, will never be successfully asserted against anyone. Making it a waste of time and money to file. And I argue that these claims so blatantly fail 101 and 103 that the lawyer should have refused to file the patent application on the inventor's behalf. The inventor is just wasting his money, and this application is yet one more that clogs the system to the detriment of all (though the big companies clog the system with orders larger amounts of crap applications). I argue there are times when lawyers should refuse to file crap, explaining why to the inventor (starting with "What's the new useful result here?"). Or not. What do you think? And this is not an isolated example. An earlier filed patent application swaps out the iron, and swaps in a tombstone: United States Patent Application 20040085337 Video enhanced grave marker I claim: 1. A tombstone for communicating audio and visual data related to the deceased from the tombstone to a user, the tombstone comprising: an indicia bearing and viewing portion; a visual display; an audio transmitter for communicating sound waves to a user; data related to the deceased, the data comprising audio and visual images of the deceased, the data stored within storage media; and means for reproducing the audio and visual images of the deceased from the data related to the deceased utilizing one or more players, readers or drivers for the one or more of the storage media. Again, what's the new useful result achieved by the audio device being embedded into the tombstone? Besides, there is an old episode of "Star Trek" which has such a device, I think, an audiovisual projection of some dead person is triggered when the Star Trek crew walked by.

United States Patent Application 20070218960 Combined electric iron and audio device Abstract A combined iron and audio device is described, having an audio device incorporated into the housing of an electric iron. The audio device can be any audio playing device (e.g., an AM/FM radio receiver, a satellite radio receiver, a radio, cassette player, USB audio player, and an MP3 player, etc.). The controls of the audio device may be located on one of the exposed surfaces of the housing and/or the audio device may be controlled by a wireless remote controller. _________________________________________________________________ Inventors: Bernardino; Noel Nunez; (Bacolod City, PH) Correspondence Name and Address: BAY AREA INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP, LLC PO BOX 210459, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94121-0459 _________________________________________________________________ Claims _________________________________________________________________ 1. A combined iron and audio device, comprising: an electric iron having a housing; an audio device configured into the housing; a control system for the audio device, said control system being configured to operably control said audio device; and a power source to power the audio device. 2. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the audio device is selected from the group consisting of an AM/FM radio receiver, a satellite radio receiver, a radio, a cassette player, USB audio player and an MP3 player. 3. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the control system comprises controls, which controls include a volume control, a on/off control, a tuning control, or a play/stop control. 4. The combined iron and audio device of claim 3, in which at least one control of the controls is disposed in or on an exposed surface of the housing. 5. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the control system comprises wireless remote control receiver operable for receiving control commands from a corresponding wireless remote control transmitter. 6. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, further comprising means for protecting the audio device and all its components from water damage. 7. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, further comprising a jack to plug in headphones and wireless headphones. 8. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the power source is a battery. 9. The combined iron and audio device of claim 8, further comprising a battery compartment operable for safely holding the battery in cooperation with the housing. 10. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the power source comprises a power converting circuit, the circuit converting the electrical power used by the iron into a form suitable for use in the audio device. 11. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the audio device is located in the back side of the iron housing. 12. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, further comprising an audio output unit that is configured to receive output audio signals from said audio device, said audio output unit being operable to communicate to a user audio signals based on the output audio signals. 13. The combined iron and audio device of claim 12, in which said audio output unit is a speaker configured into the housing such that the audio output of the speaker can be made audible to the user. 14. The combined iron and audio device of claim 12, in which said audio output unit is a wireless speaker configured such that the audio output of the wireless speaker can be made audible to the user. 15. The combined iron and audio device of claim 1, in which the control system is configured to control the audio device in response to usage of the iron. 16. A combined iron and audio device, comprising: an electric iron having a housing; means for configuring an audio device into the housing; means for controlling said audio device; and means for powering the audio device.

A very Bilski (non-technological, non-patentable) patent claims

A patent that issued in 2000 that has a nice set of "non-technological" claims. Ignoring the 102 and 103 (the US patent law paragraphs requiring novelty and non-obviousness) problems this patent has, it is a good example of how general might processes be to be patentable, since they claims can be done purely by humans. By the way, the following patent is completely utterly idiotic from a 102 and 103 point of view, since the state of Massachusetts, in conjunction with church bingos, were doing much of the claimed steps in the early 1990s). I highlighted or italicized idiocy. United States Patent 6,102,395 Method for conducting a lottery game Filed: May 1998 Abstract In a method for conducting a lottery game having a plurality of ticket sets, a master party sells the ticket sets to organizations. Each organization sells tickets from ticket sets to customers. Each ticket has hidden indicia which, when revealed, may entitle a customer to instant winnings paid by the organization that sold the ticket and/or may entitle the customer to eligibility for a sweepstakes prize. The sweepstakes prize is funded by the master party from proceeds of ticket set sales to organizations. Claims I claim: 1. A method for conducting a lottery game having a plurality of ticket sets, wherein each ticket set has a plurality of tickets and wherein each ticket, when opened, reveals hidden indicia, some of which (non-patent language, vague) will entitle a customer to instant winnings and/or eligibility for a sweepstakes prize, comprising the steps of: a) selling, by a master party for proceeds, a ticket set to each of at least two organizations; b) allowing each organization to issue individual tickets, from the ticket set sold to that organization from the master party, to customers, and allowing each organization to redeem awards for instant winnings on a ticket issued by that organization; and c) retaining by the master party a portion of the proceeds from selling ticket sets to organizations as a pool from which to finance the sweepstakes prize, thereby allowing said master party to exclusively redeem awards for a sweepstakes prize on a ticket issued by an organization by awarding at least a portion of the pool. 2. The method according to claim 1 wherein at least one organization sells, prior to issuing, tickets to customers. 3. The method according to claim 1 further including the step of receiving directly from customers those tickets which make the customers eligible for the sweepstakes prize. 4. The method according to claim 1 further including the step of determining a winner of the sweepstakes prize from the tickets received and providing to the winner an award from the proceedings. 5. The method according to claim 1 further including providing to the organizations a flair explaining the game rules. 6. The method according to claim 5 further including providing to the organizations a poster for displaying the sweepstakes prize and a last date for receipt of sweepstakes tickets at a drawing location. 7. The method according to claim 1 including providing to the organizations means for transmitting the sweepstakes entry to a drawing location. 8. The method according to claim 7 wherein the means for transmitting is comprised of a mailing envelope and an entry form for transmitting the qualifying ticket and the name and address of the customer holding that qualifying ticket. 9. The method according to claim 1 wherein the organization may be any one from a group comprised of a charitable organization, a club and a tavern. 10. The method according to claim 1 wherein the master party may be any one from the group comprised of a distributor, end user or manufacturer.

Why the horse-shaped house is a problem patent

In a recent post, I mentioned a patent on a horse-shaped house (U.S. patent 5,564,239). Here is a very thorough analysis from a reader: The patent for a horse shaped sculpture may also be a good example of a weak patent examination process in action. The first cited patent - from 1882 - really sets forth the entire concept of an animal shaped building. Including stating "The building may be of the form of any other animal than an elephant, as that of a fish, fowl, & etc." That description pretty clearly includes a horse, and anyone looking at the patent - or the actual buildings that resulted, would surely realize that the building could be shaped like a horse, or a cow, or any other animal. Isn't it obvious to surround a building (of any sort) with a garden and/or a moat, and/or a fence? Lets see - gardens have surrounded buildings for centuries, and we've all seen castles from 500 years ago which are surrounded by water (and even have gardens in some cases - and even bridges over the moats). Is it novel to make the outline of the garden, or the moat, octagonal? Wouldn't that be an obvious extension, of say, a pentagonal or hexagonal shape? In fact if I wanted to spend an hour or so I bet I can find an octagonal moat surrounding a building. And thus with the prior art you have the '239 patent. But it is an amusing patent. I remember visiting Lucy the Elephant - built from Lafferty's 1882 design in Margate NJ. It was a decrepit relic when I was young, but has since been restored. See the story at: http://www.lucytheelephant.org/ The web site includes historical descriptions of other similar structures, how they were used for amusement purposes, etc. By the way -- Lucy the Elephant is surrounded by a rectangular fence, with an opening. Is it really an invention to make the fence octagonal instead of rectangular, rhetorically speaking?

How to write strong patents using these often neglected caveats

Many patents suffer from too much ego and pompous, advertizing content that disclose zero according to the patenting requirements.

Discovering something: discovery is not manufacture. This is one of most typical patent rejections. Invention necessarily involves the suggestion of an act: new product, new result, new process new combination to produce new product or result.

Misleading description. If there are details which are not necessary and are put in to mislead then the patent is void.

The patenting requirement is to tell of the best method known to ensure good faith on the part of the applicant: if the inventor knowing two agents for effecting an end could by disclosure of one preclude the public from the benefit of the other, he might for his own profit force a more expensive one on the public keeping back the simple and cheap one which is contrary to good faith.

Claim not fairly based: a claim to be supported in the specification must also relate to the problem solved. Otherwise it is too wide. The inventor is entitled protection for an article that embodies his idea but not for an article which while capable of being used to carry out his idea into effect is described in terms which cover things quite unrelated to his idea and do not embody it at all.

Theories that are wrong do not invalidate patent unless it amounts to a statement that would in practice be misleading. This happened in the case of attempts to patent methods of nutrition according to blood types, and in the case of the red Kabalah string.

Grounds of revocation

Insufficiency : the specification is not OK

Non-disclosure of best method

Claim not fairly based - claim not based on specification

Ambiguity - the scope of the claim is not defined

Inutility - it does not solve the defined problem

False suggestion - any falsehood

Prior grant

Lack of novelty - previously revealed

Obviousness

Applicant not entitled to apply- poorly elucidated, formulated, "half-baked" disclosure

Patent obtained in contravention of the rights of the petitioner

Invention not a manufacture)see above)

Use of invention (would be) illegal

Prior secret use

Careless language sinks patent

Here is a patent with very questionable claim language: Systems and methods for trading emission reductions (U.S. Patent 7,343,341) Claim 1. A computer-implemented method of promoting the reduction of emissions, comprising: registering participants voluntarily with an established entity; ... This claim (and the other independent claim) is badly constructed, making the patent unenforceable: First, voluntary is an unnecessary limitation. If such registration already exists that requires payment, it is completely obvious to have the registration be voluntary. If such prior art does not exist, there is no reason to limit the scope. Also, it is impossible to register with an unestablished, i.e., non-existent entity. Nowhere does the specification explain what is meant by an established entity. This clause more safely should read ... registering participants with an entity .... Second, after this use here, the phrase established entity isn't used elsewhere in the claims - it is synergistic with nothing. The reason for it to be in the claims: the rest of claim 1 has phrases like establishing an emission reduction schedule, etc. - all tasks presumably done by the entity. But there is no claim language that links the entity to the "do-ings", for example, ... said entity establishing an emission reduction schedule ..., which creates the synergy. This claim is fatally defective. The other independent claim 17 has the same defect. The patent is nearly unenforceable. The claim language might be corrected with a Reissue. In the eventuality of the Reissue, the assignee's lawyers should process the Reissue pro-bono :-), given the apparently slop-floppy claim language

Software is found to be a machine, again

A recent IEEE article: The claimed invention .... is not a disembodied mathematical concept which may be characterized as an "abstract idea", but rather a specific machine to produce a useful, concrete and tangible result. To some, this is a bit awkward, in that most software, when loaded into a microprocessor, doesn't reconfigure the physical architecture of the microprocessor to make it more "specific". I have mentioned software-machine philosophy in a previous post, and, here it is, picked with a fine tooth comb. The flow of electrons through the microprocessor is made more specific and useful, but the microprocessor architecture itself is no more specific with software loaded. Reflecting decades of engineering, the cover paper in the August 2008 issue of IEEE Computer magazine makes this literally true, in a sense - when you load the software, part of the physical architecture is altered, creating a more specific machine. The paper is titled "Warp processing: dynamic translation of binaries to FPGA circuits" (by the way, anyone who argues 35 USC 101 and software without mentioning FPGAs is a brain-dead idiot). The abstract is: Warp processing dynamically and transparently transforms an executing microprocessor's binary kernels into customized field-programmable gate array circuits, commonly resulting in 2X to 100X speedup over executing on microprocessors. A new architecture and set of dynamic CAD tools demonstrate warp processing's potential. Warp processing is: "In warp processing, a compute platform transparently performs FPGA circuit compilation as a program's binary executes on a microprocessor - that is, dynamically." A computer program - an algorithm - an information processing method has its structure converted to a specific hardware digital circuit as the gate arrays connections are reset - there really is a specific hardware circuit - that is the computer program. If you attached quantum dot lasers to the switching gates of the FPGA as the computer program was loaded, you could physically see the specific machine being created. One sentence from the article: "In contrast, field programmable gate array software bits represent a circuit to be mapped onto an FPGA's configurable logic fabric." which no one in the engineering world will disagree with, a sentence completely compatible with common sense. However, many strive to fabricate explanations in this context of why software is/is-not non-functional descriptive bits (not patentable), a circuit (patentable), mathematical logic (not patentable), and/or a machine/fabric (patentable). They have to lie to make these equivalences into non-equivalences to find something unpatentable. For engineering, no such explanations are needed. But to the strange views of software patent critics (see below) and PTO management, such explanations can only be done by lying about science and engineering. Issued FPGA patents are as much literal examples just like this System level applications of adaptive computing technology: U.S. Patent 7,404,170, Real-time implementation of field programmable gate arrays in hyperspectral imaging U.S. Patent 7,366,326 - Is firmware - hardware, software, or software hardware? The engineering world doesn't care. Only people who don't understand the science and engineering care. One of the biggest obscenities of 35 USC 101 caselaw and written briefs is the near complete absence of citations to any of the science and engineering literature that can resolve this issue once and for all . This legal arrogance to ignore science and engineering in decisions involving science/engineering law is why still now incompetent PTO management is forcing use to argue these issues.

How VeriSign's unpatentable patent squeaked through unsearched

Look at the following totally unpatentable software method as of August 1998, and borrowing from ()biochemical concepts, call it a genus-type patent claim (though utterly not genius): 1. A method in a data processing system with distributed databases, each responsible for maintaining application-specific records for an associated application, comprising: receiving user input containing a query string, a plurality of applications and at least one search criterion corresponding to the plurality of applications; transmitting a request for a search of the query string to each of the distributed databases associated with the plurality of applications; receiving search results from each of the distributed databases associated with the plurality of applications indicating, for each of the specified applications, whether an application-specific record exists for the application in the specified distributed database; and displaying the search results. In short, a method of doing distributed database searches, a technique well established in the 1980s. Now consider the following species restriction: distributed databases = DNS servers application = domain [registration] application-specific records =registration records of domain names query string =domain name and substitute the restricted species terms into the above genus claim, resulting in: 1. A method in a data processing system with DNS servers, each responsible for maintaining registration records of domain names for an associated domain, comprising: receiving user input containing a domain name, a plurality of domains and at least one search criterion corresponding to the plurality of domains; transmitting a request for a search of the domain name to each of the DNS servers associated with the plurality of domains; receiving search results from each of the DNS servers associated with the plurality of domains indicating, for each of the specified domains, whether a domain name record exists for the domain name in the specified domain; and displaying the search results. This type of software technique, as "genus restriction" is completely obvious to one skilled in the art, especially in light of mountains of non-patent prior art for distributed database queries from the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially distributed database queries of Internet information. Nevertheless, here is the patent: Patent 6,560,634 6 May 2003 Method of determining unavailability of an internet domain name VeriSign, Inc., Filed: August 13, 1998 Abstract Methods, systems, and articles of manufacture consistent with the present invention provide an improved query server that overcomes the shortcomings of existing domain name searching techniques by performing a multitude of searches simultaneously, transparent to the user. Specifically, the improved query server searches for existing domain name records in various domains and then displays the results in a formatted manner, thus eliminating the need for a user to perform individual searches. I think nobody bothered to search for prior art. For example, how were the following papers missed, all published ten years on more before the patent was filed: The Clearinghouse: a decentralized agent for locating named objects in a distributed environment ACM Trans. Office Information Systems, July 1983, 230 Designing a global name service 1986 ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, 1 A name service for evolving, heterogeneous systems ACM Symposium on Operating Systems Principles 1987, 52 A model of name resolution in distributed systems 6th Int. Conference on Distributed Computing Systems 1986, 523 This is all a contempt of science and engineering. Applicant and PTO searching is still a joke. And I have still not heard one word that convinces me that outsourcing PTO searching will improve anything. Especially in light of patents like this.

The psychotic ad-in-bread patent kills itself by flying into infinity

Here's a gem of a patent and claim language: US Patent 6,421,986 (Method of advertising by distributing targeted promotional materials inside packages of bread) c. placing a packet, which contains one or more pieces of the promotional materials, inside each said package at the bread-making facility based on one or more factors selected FROM THE GROUP CONSISTING OF THE SPECIFIC TYPE OF BREAD TO BE PACKAGED AND A RETAIL DESTINATION OF SAID PACKAGE OF BREAD, is indefinite, and self-limiting, all at the same time: Section 112 of the US Patent Law requires that a patent claim specifically point out and distinctly claim what the applicant regards as the invention. In bygone days, there was jurisprudence supporting the proposition that the word "or" created an ambiguity in the claim that prevented it from being specific and definite. To avoid that infirmity, somebody invented a way to get around the "no-no" of saying red, green, orange, blue, brown, gold, yellow OR purple. Then somebody started writing claims saying: SELECTED FROM THE GROUP CONSISTING OF red, green, orange, blue, brown, gold, yellow AND purple. It means the same thing but avoids using the forbidden word OR. This practice was judicially affirmed in the Ex parte Markush case, a decision by Asst. Patent Commissioner Kinan in 1924. Eventually, wise folks discovered that the word OR really isn't so bad if it is used correctly. See In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716 (CCPA 1980). These days most patent examiners and courts won't consider a claim defective merely because it contains a recitation using the term OR. It's sorta like what happened when the CAFC finally came out with the decision in State Street Bank that merely because a claim recites a method of doing business, it isn't automatically outside of the patent statute. But old habits die hard, so even though there are a lot of patent claims issuing that contain the word OR, we're still dutifully taught to write Markush Groups, if only to avoid the possibility of encountering an old examiner who hasn't read Harnisch and would write an "indefiniteness" rejection just because he finds an "or" in the claim. The claim you cite would read a lot simpler if the draftsman had just used an OR to join the two alternatives. Whether either of the two alternatives themselves introduces indefiniteness into the claim is another question, which it is appropriate to raise, regardless of whether the conjunction was the word OR or the Markush litany. The answer would probably be found by looking to the specification and deciding if something specific and definite was described for each of the alternatives. Yes, it is jarring to encounter a claim that includes the "overkill" of a Markush group joining just a pair of alternatives, while it looks to you as if one or both of the alternatives themselves might not survive an inquiry as to their definiteness. Another aspect of Markush claiming, as it relates to chemical practice, is that there is supposed to be a common characteristic among the recited elements so that there is unity of invention. But that's another story. The Markush group in the ad-in-bread claim as being applicable to the class of factors used in selecting the materials to be placed inside the bread packages. I see two classes of selection factors: bread type, and bread destination. The use of "consisting of" closes the set. That seems explicit, even though the domains of possible bread types and destinations are not enumerated. According to the MPEP (Sec 2173.05(h)), "[t]he materials set forth in the Markush group ordinarily must belong to a recognized physical or chemical class or to an art-recognized class." A factor is not a "material", but current practices do not seem to exclude factors from use in Markush groups. A selection factor is probably an "art-recognized class," where "type" and "destination" are each a kind of selection factor. Kindly check out 6,202,053, (Method and apparatus for generating segmentation scorecards for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants) examiners Stamber and Kazimi. It uses something similar, using the term "factor group" in two places (steps a. and b.): 1. A computer implemented method for evaluating credit risk of bank card applicants comprising the steps of: a) dividing a population of bank card applicants into a plurality of sub-populations using a processing unit, based on a first factor selected from a factor group consisting of length of credit history, number of reported trades, reported delinquency, bank card utilization, and revolving balance acceleration; b) dividing at least one of said sub-populations into additional sub-populations based on a second factor selected from the factor group, the second factor being different from the first factor selected from the factor group; c) developing a scorecard for each of said plurality of sub-populations and additional sub-populations; d) applying one of said scorecards to a bank card application; and e) scoring said application, based on said applied scorecard. Thus in the 986 bread promotional material distribution method patent, the kinds of selection factors are fixed and explicit (bread type or bread destination), although, yes, the range of outcomes (type may be white, wheat, rye, 2-grain, ..., n-grain, ... ; destination may be Kroger, Meijer, Wal-Mart, ...) is much larger. In this case, I don't think that enumerating each bread type and each destination into two Markush groups is as enabling as defining the classes of factors. I like the term "factor group" better than just "factor." As you pointed out, this is further complicated by claiming "one or more" of such factors. I read this to mean that the selection path may be by bread type, bread destination, or both. Some materials my go into 3-grain bread, regardless of destination. Some materials may go to all Kroger stores, regardless of bread type. Some packets may go only into 5-grain bread packages destined for Wal-Mart. From an enabling point of view (have not read the patent), I could build something from the 986 language in Claim 1. No novelty and all obviousness. No comment. Maybe some comment: The Markush part appears OK, but the claim is unclear. I don't have a problem with this type of Markush either, since it is the "factors" that are being delineated and not the type of bread of destination. There is no need for further detail. As you've pointed out, however, the claim is vague in describing "one or more factors". Hopefully, it is defined in the specification. Another problem is that the claim is unclear in what the phrase "based on one or more..." is referring to. There are at least three meanings that I could think of: 1. Does it mean that the act of "placing a packet" depends on the type of bread or its destination? So, if the bread is whole wheat, then no placing of a packet occurs? If its going to Miami, then they get a packet? 2. Or, does it mean the promotional materials themselves are different depending on the type or destination of the bread? Raisin bread gets scratch-and-sniff cards? Rye bread gets coupons for fiber supplements? 3. Or, does it mean the number of pieces of promotional materials depend on the type or destination of the bread? Loafs headed to Alaska get multiple mail-order catalogs? Those to New York get a single copy? No comment on the above confusion. I am sure, though, that it is completely explained in the specification, but not enjoying the protection of corresponding claims.

Phobia-inspired patent language

I recently came across the following patent claim: (United States Patent 6,344,906, Universal document scanner controller) 14. A scanner controller according to claim 1, further comprising an image compression unit connected to the internal bus, the image compression unit being capable of performing image compression implementing at least one of public algorithms, licensed algorithms, derived algorithms and specially developed algorithms. besides derived and specially developed already falling into the scope of public and licensed, the language of the claim serves to preserve the fragile subconscious of both the feebly writing paralegal and the inventor's liaison working with the paralegal. This is another one of those shoot-yourself in the foot overlimiting writing.

Another silly patent

US Patent 6,513,042 Internet test-making method What is claimed is: 1. A method of making a test and posting the test on-line for potential test-takers, said method comprising the steps of: providing a host system and a plurality of remote terminals operatively coupled to the Internet; inputting questions at one of the remote terminals; compiling the questions at the host system to make a compiled test; posting the test on-line for potential test-takers; wherein a test-taker is required to pay to take the compiled test; and wherein the test-maker and the proprietor of the host system share the revenues generated by the test-taker taking the test. Granted, this is another arrogant business method, but required? Their patent writer (or drafter, or a paralegal) should have maintained the claiming style and written: wherein a presenting a test taker with... to take the test - the phrase fits the technical description and an example therefrom. It should say, albeit in legalese doublespeak, but as a stronger claim wherein a presenting a test taker with ...for participating in the test... and share - hasn't it been discussed by hundreds of patent examiners as ambiguous? Because share in method claims is better represented by dividing that's all. It's very simple.